Kednapa Thavorn1,2,3, Doug Coyle4, Jeffrey S Hoch5, Lisa Vandermeer6, Sasha Mazzarello6, Zhou Wang7, George Dranitsaris8, Dean Fergusson9,4,10,11, Mark Clemons9,4,6. 1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. kthavorn@ohri.ca. 2. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. kthavorn@ohri.ca. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES uOttawa), Ottawa, ON, Canada. kthavorn@ohri.ca. 4. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 6. Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 7. Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 8. Statistical Consultant, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. 10. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 11. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a risk model-guided (RMG) antiemetic prophylaxis strategy compared with the physician's choice (PC) strategy in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis based on a published randomized controlled trial of 324 patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy at two Canadian cancer centers. Patients were randomized to receive their antiemetic treatments according to either predefined risk scores or the treating physician's preference. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Cost and utility data were obtained from the Canadian published literature. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) over a range of willingness-to-pay values. The lower and upper bounds of the 95% CIs were used to characterize the statistical uncertainty for the cost-effectiveness estimates and construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: From the health care system's perspective, the RMG strategy was associated with greater QALYs gained (0.0016, 95% CI 0.0009, 0.0022) and higher cost ($49.19, 95% CI $24.87, $73.08) than the PC strategy, resulting in an ICER of $30,864.28 (95% CI $14,718.98, $62,789.04). At the commonly used threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that RMG prophylaxis is cost-effective was >94%; this probability increased with greater willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: The risk-guided antiemetic prophylaxis is an economically attractive option for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. This information supports the implementation of risk prediction models to guide chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in clinical practices.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a risk model-guided (RMG) antiemetic prophylaxis strategy compared with the physician's choice (PC) strategy in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis based on a published randomized controlled trial of 324 patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy at two Canadian cancer centers. Patients were randomized to receive their antiemetic treatments according to either predefined risk scores or the treating physician's preference. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Cost and utility data were obtained from the Canadian published literature. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) over a range of willingness-to-pay values. The lower and upper bounds of the 95% CIs were used to characterize the statistical uncertainty for the cost-effectiveness estimates and construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: From the health care system's perspective, the RMG strategy was associated with greater QALYs gained (0.0016, 95% CI 0.0009, 0.0022) and higher cost ($49.19, 95% CI $24.87, $73.08) than the PC strategy, resulting in an ICER of $30,864.28 (95% CI $14,718.98, $62,789.04). At the commonly used threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that RMG prophylaxis is cost-effective was >94%; this probability increased with greater willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: The risk-guided antiemetic prophylaxis is an economically attractive option for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. This information supports the implementation of risk prediction models to guide chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in clinical practices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; Early stage breast cancer; Economic evaluation; Net-benefit regression approach; Risk model-guided antiemetic prophylaxis strategy
Authors: I Kuchuk; N Bouganim; K Beusterien; J Grinspan; L Vandermeer; S Gertler; S F Dent; X Song; R Segal; S Mazzarello; F Crawley; G Dranitsaris; M Clemons Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: George Dranitsaris; Sasha Mazzarello; Stephanie Smith; Lisa Vandermeer; Nathaniel Bouganim; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Terry Ng; Sasha Mazzarello; Zhou Wang; Brian Hutton; George Dranitsaris; Lisa Vandermeer; Stephanie Smith; Mark Clemons Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Brian Hutton; Mark Clemons; Sasha Mazzarello; Iryna Kuchuk; Becky Skidmore; Terry Ng Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: N Bouganim; G Dranitsaris; S Hopkins; L Vandermeer; L Godbout; S Dent; P Wheatley-Price; C Milano; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.677